Answers on questionable dealings

Last week's indictment of former Newark Mayor Sharpe James raised a few questions in the minds of some readers.

I heard this one a lot: "James was indicted for selling off city land cheap to a female companion who flipped the lots for big profits. The city council had to approve those deals. How can anybody blame James for selling off city land cheap without also blaming the council?"

First of all, there is a difference between what is wrong and stupid and what is indictable.

Selling city land at a discount to get rid of vacant lots and derelict buildings, put more property on the tax rolls, improve housing stock and increase home owner ship was exactly what Newark should have done. The idea was right.

The execution was wrong and stupid. According to the 86-page federal indictment handed up last week, the dealing included some special favors for at least one special mayoral friend. That's the kind of thing that can make what is wrong into something that is illegal.

Did the land deals involve any kickbacks? They should have -- in the form of discounts to the people who bought homes built on discounted city land. The city should have made sure that developers passed the land discounts on to owner-occupying buyers. Instead, the city allowed developers to squeeze many multi-family homes on parcels bought for $4 a square foot and sell those houses for $400,000 and more each. The buyers should have gotten a better bargain.

At one point, the city council passed an ordinance allowing those new houses to be built as close as 18 inches apart. This was Newark's opportunity to build a better city, with less crowding. Developers should have been asked to kick in play space for kids, libraries, a supermarket or two. The opportunity was wasted, and yes, the council played its part.

Lots of high-priced homes on cheap land created another kind of opportunity. It is described on page 39 of the federal indictment as "Scheme to Improperly Favor Close Companion through Fraudulent Sale of City Properties."

The indictment says that Tamika Riley, who was indicted with James, did not qualify to be involved in a particular city development program. Yet she was able to buy land through that program be cause James "steered" the deals to Riley, says the indictment. What she bought cheap, she then resold in a heartbeat for a whole lot of money, say public records.

Those who say James could not have sold that land on his own are absolutely right. The deals required the approval of the city council -- as well as the city's economic development officials, corporation counsel and business administrator. A lot of people had to be asleep at the cash register.

Also, in 2004, during a critical vote on the state budget, James, who is also state Sen. Sharpe James, held his vote hostage until he got a commitment for a new state law that affects Newark alone: The municipal council can approve only those land deals presented to it by the mayor's office. So all of you who want to spread the blame, save a smear for Trenton.

Question No. 2: "Isn't James innocent until proven guilty?"

Of course. The U.S. attorney will have to convince a jury. Illegal or not, conviction or not, some things are just plain wrong. That includes charging a lot of personal expenses -- and the related expenses of various female companions and other close associates -- to city credit cards, which is also in the indictment.

Because the indictment charges wrongdoing while James was mayor, if he is acquitted, James could ask for the city taxpayers to pick up the cost of his legal fees.

He might not ask.

Then again, this is a guy who, according to the indictment, used a city credit card time and again for such mundane matters as going to the movies -- in Clifton, not Newark -- and ferrying his personal car -- a Rolls Royce -- to Martha's Vineyard. I'm guessing that he would ask the city to pick up the lawyers' fees.

Question No. 3: "Aren't the credit card counts in the indictment making much to-do about chump change?"

Those charges come to about $60,000, which is about twice the median household income in Newark. Some people may consider that chump change. As a city resident, I prefer not to be chumped.

On more question: "Any comment on the rather low-cut outfit that Tamika Riley wore to court the day of the indictment?"